SASless, I saw the US Army numbers I mentioned so long ago (1983) that I doubt that the current tactical philosophy is pertinent- or goggles- for that matter. What stuck in my mind is how safe helicopter operations can be, with a well trained crew in a real safety culture.
The 206 safety record reflects that as well, it is- or was- the machine of choice for fleet 135 operators that wanted to make money. Hence a very high share of hours flown were by professionals, often with a real safety culture, and sometimes- world class training. Some of the instructors I had the privilege of flying with at PHI were among the best I ever saw, anywhere, since 1968. And, at that time they swung a big stick at the company, safety, equipment and "rules and procedures"-wise. I'm painting with a very broad brush here, but many 135 training departments are almost invisible in their respctive companies, no matter the quality of staff- they don't influence much beyond the government required paperwork. My impresion is they're expected to generate that paper at minimal cost and be good and be quiet the rest of the time. The connection and influence that the training department had at the corporate level made PHI one of the safest operators in the world- when it worked well. When they were pushed down the influence ladder, it was less successful.
Any connection between more sophisticated equipment and safety is the product of reverse selection of data. Pilots selected for upgrades to IFR and multis, are generally more senior and thus have a higher experience level, are generally more skilled, and more dedicated and knowledgeable professionals. My experience is that the weak among that group are soon known by their reputation, and weeded out after selection, by their peers.
No thank you(emphatically!), to the European solution. I shudder when I read the threads discussing aviation rules over there. Besides, and I don't have any data to support this opinon, but I've been told that there's no significant difference in accident rates between our system and theirs, generally speaking- perhaps EMS gets better support, I don't know.
Any connection to improved safety in Europe, or anywhere, is not regulations or equipment- it's the professional pilots, company support and respect for their professional pilots.
MARS, you make a couple very good points-
I would indeed rather be in a twin. Right now I'm more afraid of the dark and the stuff in it, than I am of engine failures. I'm more likely to survive an engine failure at night over the Smokies than I am an encounter with a dark tower, or wires. I do not go in questionable weather, so that's moot.
Also your level of care issue has always been a puzzle to me. If I go to the airport and buy a ticket for air transport, I am entitled to the highest level of care- what we call 121. But, if my broken and usually unconscious body is stuffed into a helo EMS, it's an "charter," and falls under 135????
Last edited by Devil 49; 25th Feb 2005 at 17:02.